Agree or Disagree - Religious DUers are "satisfied with not understanding the world."

[skepticscott]

169. No need to "pretend" that you've missed the point

and are trying to create a false equivalency.

You've tried (badly) to argue that Dawkins' criticism of what religion teaches people to believe and how it teaches them to think is no different than saying that the practitioners of religion believe or think that way, or criticizing them for doing so. Unfortunately, you and a lot of other people have previously spent a lot of time arguing that there is no necessary connection between what a religion teaches and what its member believe and do ("Look, see how many Catholics use birth control or favor same-sex marriage!&quot . Dawkins certainly knows that not every single member of a religion believes every single tenet and teaching of that religion, and has said nothing to the contrary. So criticizing religion for teaching something is obviously not the equivalent of claiming that its adherents believing that something. We'll just leave your rather odious slam of "DU Atheists" in the trash where it belongs.

And here's the thing…the Catholic Church would still deserve to be criticized for even trying to teach people that homosexual sex is unnatural and sinful, and that same-sex couples should never be allowed to marry, even if not a single one of their members actually adopted those beliefs (if only). Just as Protestant fundy churches would still deserve to be criticized for relentlessly promoting the belief that Bronze Age creation myths qualify as science, even if their members had matured mentally to the point where they all saw through it (again, if only).

This is the bit where you respond that you don't care what I say, you still believe the two things are the same, and that you're going to keep criticizing Dawkins for what you invented instead of what he said, regardless of how many people show you how wrong you are.